5 ms·

You are wrongly assuming that libertarians are atomistic and think that every consumer has to do everything. That is however not the case. Libertarians have ac

by nickik 10y ago

You are wrongly assuming that libertarians are atomistic and think that every consumer has to do everything. That is however not the case. Libertarians have actually thought about this stuff quite a bit. All society relies on a system of law. How this system is created or enforced is a seprete question. In almost all systems of law ever, there is a clause against fraud. Theirfore this company has defrauded everybody who has bought their product and therefore can be collectivly sued. I must also mention that we have primitive collective suing systems in place. Many legal schooler have long advocated to change this. It goes further then that, because the person that sold you the product and the producer might not be the same. The seller is also partially responsable and can be sued by the consumers, the seller must the sue the producer. Its the same idea with river pollution, the lawcase goes up the river and expands. As for discovering such cases. There are hole number of possible options if the options mentioned above are enforced. First, there can be a commercial consumer group that finds error, the buys nearly wothless claims from lots of consumers and goes after the seller with those. This will pretty quickly have the effect that the seller has much more insentive to test himself. Also you can have community no-profits doing this kind of things, that will make them seem less greedy.

Steko 10y ago
> First, there can be a commercial consumer group that finds error, the buys nearly wothless claims from lots of consumers and goes after the seller with those. This will pretty quickly have the effect that the seller has much more insentive to test himself. Or his incentive is to run a fly by night operation that shuts down before it can be sued. > Also you can have community no-profits doing this kind of things, that will make them seem less greedy. This touches on one glaring problem with libertarian utopia. Their replacement for the evil gubmint is a host of other bureaucracies (giant consumer groups, a bunch of non-profits doing testing, insurance for everything, etc.) that presumably will have many of the same pathologies as the gubmint.
- JanezStupar 10y ago
  > This touches on one glaring problem with libertarian utopia. Their replacement for the evil gubmint is a host of other bureaucracies (giant consumer groups, a bunch of non-profits doing testing, insurance for everything, etc.) that presumably will have many of the same pathologies as the gubmint. Which is kind of the point. Institutions can be functional or disfunctional. The only way to prevent disfunctional institutions bogging down the government is by not having the government run them in the first place. The easiest way to deal with a dysfunctional institutions is by letting them die. Which is a lot easier when government is not involved. Last but not least, there is also the element of freedom. One cannot opt-out of government and its institutions - without having to move or worse. While as proposed above - the possibility of opting out of institutions - is necessary for having any hope of not being stuck with corrupt institutions.
  - riskable 10y ago
    It's funny how you worded this because, "letting them die" is basically how an anti-Libertarian would sum up libertarianism.
    - JanezStupar 10y ago
      Yes, that is what dishonest, ax grinding anti-libertarians do constantly.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    So, if government didn't do anything, it would be functional, but only because private actors would stand in and provide incompetent bureaucrats or self-interested bureaucratsof their own?
    - JanezStupar 10y ago
      I don't give a damn if Oracle is stupid, incompetent, malicious or all of the above. I decided to have no business with Oracle and they have no way of forcing me into a relationship with it. If, however - Oracle were a government institution - then it could leverage its monopoly over violence to get me to do its bidding - regardless of what I thought of its services. And as one goes through history, one notices that most if not all of the institutions that governments provide - have started outside of government, yet have been included into the scope of government. Either because the ruling party at the time saw it as a means of expanding their reach OR because people have observed that it would be cheaper/more effective to run these institutions "collectively" - where the state pops up immediately as an endeavor that is already done for the "good of all". Unfortunately - no institution is ideal. And as we have seen time and again through history, all institutions succumb to corruption eventually. And being stuck with corrupt institutions is no fun at all. I have no idea, how you maligned my argument into the garbage you presented. But I would argue, that you are actually presenting an excellent case for striving towards preventing dishonest people such as yourself from getting power over others. Thus while you undoubtedly think yourself an edgy cynic - you are merely solidifying my point.
- nickik 10y ago
  Its funny, whenever somebody makes a libertarian argument, somebody throws 'libertarian utopia' back. I don't believe in utopia, a libertarian system would not be perfect, misery and suffering will not be eliminated. Not everything you buy will be perfectly labeled. No libertarian I have ever met in my hole live believes the market/legal based system is perfect, just that it usually outperforms a regulatory system > Or his incentive is to run a fly by night operation that shuts down before it can be sued. So what, you manufacture 10 bottles of creme and then vanish into the shadows? Companies have a huge intensive to stay, establish partnerships, branding, funding and so on. Also, I think the idea of legal person has gone to far. Im not against the idea of big cooperations but the legal system has clearly gone to far into the direction of none accountability (something that was actually often the case in common law legal systems). > Their replacement for the evil gubmint is a host of other bureaucracies (giant consumer groups, a bunch of non-profits doing testing, insurance for everything, etc.) that presumably will have many of the same pathologies as the gubmint. I have nothing against big organisations per se. That has never been my criticism of regulatory agencies. The groups have much more intensive to actually provide value because they relay on people to be their costumer. Also, you have pluralism, different groups have different demands. I honestly only care if stuff is not poisonous, and Im happy to pay for the lowest level of testing. I however don't really care if the meat is actually beef, Im fine with horse as long as it is tasty. Other people, like vegans are willing to pay way more for exact information. How about a suggestion that can make both of use happy? We keep the FDA, they do everything the do now, only that other products can still be sold, but they need to have a reasonably BIG label on it, that they are not FDA approved. We put a tiny tax on all products actually approved by the FDA to fund the FDA. This way we the people who care about the FDA fund it. If you are not happy with that, how about we fund 50% of the FDA that way and the other 50% threw taxes? How about if its still fully tax funded? Would that not make everybody at least reasonably happy? Historically such system usually prove that the state is not needed, and rather then excepting that the state monopolises it.
  - skaplun 10y ago
    When government isn't involved a "dysfunctional" organization will sell you air and tell you its medicine because there's no regulator checking him. Its like people are aching to be poisoned and die
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  > Or his incentive is to run a fly by night operation that shuts down before it can be sued. Case in point: try to sue anyone in Shenzhen for anything. Good luck finding who to sue first. And they build pretty much all our electronics.
  - nickik 10y ago
    They seem to have some sort of system where good quality is produced even if nobody can sue them. Otherwise other nations wouldn't buy all their electronics.
    - skaplun 10y ago
      They seem to have some sort of system where dirt cheap shit quality products ignoring international copyright laws, are pushed by assembly line workers wearing no safety gear and dying from poisoning, to consumers who then have no legal recourse when a significant portion of the products they buy fail
    - nommm-nommm 10y ago
      Are you living under a rock? Dollars speak much louder than words. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/business/worldbusiness/19toys.html http://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/business/worldbusiness/...
TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
>First, there can be a commercial consumer group that finds error, the buys nearly wothless claims from lots of consumers and goes after the seller with those. That's actually what government is for. You pay it money, and if you have a good government it includes a branch to make sure consumers aren't ripped off/poisoned/injured/killed/etc. Some governments, like the EU, are actually quite good at this. A commercial consumer group can always be bought out, infiltrated, or threatened with bankruptcy by someone with superior spending power. A government can only be taken over from the inside - often by those who pretend to support libertarian ideals, but in practice simply want to operate at various levels of criminality without challenge or oversight. But a government can never be taken over completely. There are always people who believe that market forces are a naive and unworkable ideology, and are willing to work against their excesses. They have a natural role in government regulation, but no natural role in markets.
- nickik 10y ago
  > That's actually what government is for. Y Im happy that you believe this. I however don't. So where does that leave us? > You pay it money, and if you have a good government it includes a branch to make sure consumers aren't ripped off/poisoned/injured/killed/etc. I pay the money because I don't really have the option to only pay for the government I like. If you feel that way how about a tax on all products that are FDA approved that pay for the FDA. Other products can be sold with a stamp on it, not FDA approved. > Some governments, like the EU, are actually quite good at this. I would disagree. > A government can only be taken over from the inside - often by those who pretend to support libertarian ideals, but in practice simply want to operate at various levels of criminality without challenge or oversight. > But a government can never be taken over completely. There are always people who believe that market forces are a naive and unworkable ideology, and are willing to work against their excesses. They have a natural role in government regulation, but no natural role in markets. I don't really understand your point. Its defiantly not libertarians or people who claim libertarian ideals who create, run and push for more of these regulatory agencies.
  - davewasthere 10y ago

by nickik 10y ago

Steko 10y ago

> First, there can be a commercial consumer group that finds error, the buys nearly wothless claims from lots of consumers and goes after the seller with those. This will pretty quickly have the effect that the seller has much more insentive to test himself. Or his incentive is to run a fly by night operation that shuts down before it can be sued. > Also you can have community no-profits doing this kind of things, that will make them seem less greedy. This touches on one glaring problem with libertarian utopia. Their replacement for the evil gubmint is a host of other bureaucracies (giant consumer groups, a bunch of non-profits doing testing, insurance for everything, etc.) that presumably will have many of the same pathologies as the gubmint.

JanezStupar 10y ago
> This touches on one glaring problem with libertarian utopia. Their replacement for the evil gubmint is a host of other bureaucracies (giant consumer groups, a bunch of non-profits doing testing, insurance for everything, etc.) that presumably will have many of the same pathologies as the gubmint. Which is kind of the point. Institutions can be functional or disfunctional. The only way to prevent disfunctional institutions bogging down the government is by not having the government run them in the first place. The easiest way to deal with a dysfunctional institutions is by letting them die. Which is a lot easier when government is not involved. Last but not least, there is also the element of freedom. One cannot opt-out of government and its institutions - without having to move or worse. While as proposed above - the possibility of opting out of institutions - is necessary for having any hope of not being stuck with corrupt institutions.
- riskable 10y ago
  It's funny how you worded this because, "letting them die" is basically how an anti-Libertarian would sum up libertarianism.
  - JanezStupar 10y ago
    Yes, that is what dishonest, ax grinding anti-libertarians do constantly.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Spooky23 10y ago
  So, if government didn't do anything, it would be functional, but only because private actors would stand in and provide incompetent bureaucrats or self-interested bureaucratsof their own?
  - JanezStupar 10y ago
    I don't give a damn if Oracle is stupid, incompetent, malicious or all of the above. I decided to have no business with Oracle and they have no way of forcing me into a relationship with it. If, however - Oracle were a government institution - then it could leverage its monopoly over violence to get me to do its bidding - regardless of what I thought of its services. And as one goes through history, one notices that most if not all of the institutions that governments provide - have started outside of government, yet have been included into the scope of government. Either because the ruling party at the time saw it as a means of expanding their reach OR because people have observed that it would be cheaper/more effective to run these institutions "collectively" - where the state pops up immediately as an endeavor that is already done for the "good of all". Unfortunately - no institution is ideal. And as we have seen time and again through history, all institutions succumb to corruption eventually. And being stuck with corrupt institutions is no fun at all. I have no idea, how you maligned my argument into the garbage you presented. But I would argue, that you are actually presenting an excellent case for striving towards preventing dishonest people such as yourself from getting power over others. Thus while you undoubtedly think yourself an edgy cynic - you are merely solidifying my point.
nickik 10y ago
Its funny, whenever somebody makes a libertarian argument, somebody throws 'libertarian utopia' back. I don't believe in utopia, a libertarian system would not be perfect, misery and suffering will not be eliminated. Not everything you buy will be perfectly labeled. No libertarian I have ever met in my hole live believes the market/legal based system is perfect, just that it usually outperforms a regulatory system > Or his incentive is to run a fly by night operation that shuts down before it can be sued. So what, you manufacture 10 bottles of creme and then vanish into the shadows? Companies have a huge intensive to stay, establish partnerships, branding, funding and so on. Also, I think the idea of legal person has gone to far. Im not against the idea of big cooperations but the legal system has clearly gone to far into the direction of none accountability (something that was actually often the case in common law legal systems). > Their replacement for the evil gubmint is a host of other bureaucracies (giant consumer groups, a bunch of non-profits doing testing, insurance for everything, etc.) that presumably will have many of the same pathologies as the gubmint. I have nothing against big organisations per se. That has never been my criticism of regulatory agencies. The groups have much more intensive to actually provide value because they relay on people to be their costumer. Also, you have pluralism, different groups have different demands. I honestly only care if stuff is not poisonous, and Im happy to pay for the lowest level of testing. I however don't really care if the meat is actually beef, Im fine with horse as long as it is tasty. Other people, like vegans are willing to pay way more for exact information. How about a suggestion that can make both of use happy? We keep the FDA, they do everything the do now, only that other products can still be sold, but they need to have a reasonably BIG label on it, that they are not FDA approved. We put a tiny tax on all products actually approved by the FDA to fund the FDA. This way we the people who care about the FDA fund it. If you are not happy with that, how about we fund 50% of the FDA that way and the other 50% threw taxes? How about if its still fully tax funded? Would that not make everybody at least reasonably happy? Historically such system usually prove that the state is not needed, and rather then excepting that the state monopolises it.
- skaplun 10y ago
  When government isn't involved a "dysfunctional" organization will sell you air and tell you its medicine because there's no regulator checking him. Its like people are aching to be poisoned and die
TeMPOraL 10y ago
> Or his incentive is to run a fly by night operation that shuts down before it can be sued. Case in point: try to sue anyone in Shenzhen for anything. Good luck finding who to sue first. And they build pretty much all our electronics.
- nickik 10y ago
  They seem to have some sort of system where good quality is produced even if nobody can sue them. Otherwise other nations wouldn't buy all their electronics.
  - skaplun 10y ago
    They seem to have some sort of system where dirt cheap shit quality products ignoring international copyright laws, are pushed by assembly line workers wearing no safety gear and dying from poisoning, to consumers who then have no legal recourse when a significant portion of the products they buy fail
  - nommm-nommm 10y ago
    Are you living under a rock? Dollars speak much louder than words. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/business/worldbusiness/19toys.html http://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/business/worldbusiness/...

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago

>First, there can be a commercial consumer group that finds error, the buys nearly wothless claims from lots of consumers and goes after the seller with those. That's actually what government is for. You pay it money, and if you have a good government it includes a branch to make sure consumers aren't ripped off/poisoned/injured/killed/etc. Some governments, like the EU, are actually quite good at this. A commercial consumer group can always be bought out, infiltrated, or threatened with bankruptcy by someone with superior spending power. A government can only be taken over from the inside - often by those who pretend to support libertarian ideals, but in practice simply want to operate at various levels of criminality without challenge or oversight. But a government can never be taken over completely. There are always people who believe that market forces are a naive and unworkable ideology, and are willing to work against their excesses. They have a natural role in government regulation, but no natural role in markets.

nickik 10y ago
> That's actually what government is for. Y Im happy that you believe this. I however don't. So where does that leave us? > You pay it money, and if you have a good government it includes a branch to make sure consumers aren't ripped off/poisoned/injured/killed/etc. I pay the money because I don't really have the option to only pay for the government I like. If you feel that way how about a tax on all products that are FDA approved that pay for the FDA. Other products can be sold with a stamp on it, not FDA approved. > Some governments, like the EU, are actually quite good at this. I would disagree. > A government can only be taken over from the inside - often by those who pretend to support libertarian ideals, but in practice simply want to operate at various levels of criminality without challenge or oversight. > But a government can never be taken over completely. There are always people who believe that market forces are a naive and unworkable ideology, and are willing to work against their excesses. They have a natural role in government regulation, but no natural role in markets. I don't really understand your point. Its defiantly not libertarians or people who claim libertarian ideals who create, run and push for more of these regulatory agencies.
- davewasthere 10y ago